Campaign Finance Reform

James Carville's campaign finance reform plan is just so good, I have to share. He and Simon & Shuster can sue me, but I want to have something to link to when I mention it elsewhere. Straight from "Had Enough?":

The American People aren't stupid. They understand that special interest money too often influences who runs, who wins, and how they govern.

Believe it or not, there is a way, a constitutional way, to fix our campaign finance system and start changing that perception. Forget all the spending caps and loopholes and assorted gobbledygook – here's how it works. We make a law that says, "No member of Congress can take or solicit anything of value from any person." It's that simple. Nothing of value. Not a lunch. Not a flight. Not an American flag lapel pin. They can't even solicit money for the March of Dimes. (Trust me, the March of Dimes will do just fine without those 537 volunteers.) Good causes, bad causes, Sisters of Mercy, Nazi Youth – it doesn't matter. As soon as you're chosen by the people to be a member of Congress, you're out of the money business. You don't go near it, you don't ask for it, you don't raise it. You just do your job. Think how nice it would be if, instead of spending hours a day raising money, our elected officials spent a little more time studying legislation or seeing those families of theirs they claim they want to spend more time with. You could look at what politicians were doing and how they were voting, and you could say they were doing something because they wanted to get reelected. Okay. Or that they're doing it because they're egomaniacs. Okay. Or they're doing it because they lack courage. Fine. But the one thing you could finally say is that they didn't do it for a campaign contribution. I don't think that's asking too much.

Well then, James, one might ask, how do you intend to fund political campaigns? That, too, is simple.

All nonmembers of Congress who want to be members of Congress can solicit money from whomever they please, provided the minute they receive a contribution that contribution is fully disclosed. Got it? A challenger can raise all the money he or she wants. Here's the trick. The moment that money is deposited into the challenger's account, the incumbent is credited with 85 percent of that amount from a publicly guaranteed fund. That's it. Why does the incumbent get 15 percent less than the challenger? Because he or she didn't have to pay the fundraising costs -- such as direct mail leaflets, phone solicitations, and other items, like those little hot dogs and the cocktail napkins with the candidate's name on them.

What about when there are two challengers for an open seat? Spend all you want, spend till you drop. But once someone is elected, he or she is out of the money business. Done.

How about when someone in the House wants to run for the Senate? You'd have to get out of one before running for the other.

What happens if soft money is still legal after the courts get through with McCain-Feingold? First, as someone who has run campaigns, I can tell you that a hard dollar is worth four soft dollars. Trust me. You can use hard dollars any way you want, but there are restrictions on how you can use soft dollars. But say someone is using independent expenditures to run television commercials. I think there should be a disclaimer under federal law that says: "The incumbent named in this advertisement doesn't have the resources to respond. The viewer and/or listener should take this into account when assessing the validity of the charges contained herein." I'd hope that would at least limit that crap substantially.

So, what happens if you do raise funds? If you're in Congress, and you break the law in any way, you're out. Congress has always had the right to determine the qualifications of its own members. There'd be no independent council, no six-year drawn out investigation. If you're a congressperson and you're caught grubbing for money, you're outta there faster than Bob Dornan at a mariachi festival.

Simple to understand, simple to administer, and totally constitutional.

Unlike other reform proposals, this plan in no way infringes on anyone's First Amendment rights, as defined by Buckley v. Valeo. People can still throw their money around as much as they want (although incumbents can't accept donations). They can make contributions to a challenger's campaign, they can buy TV time, they can do whatever they please. But no matter where the money comes from, 85 percent of all funds spent on a challenger will be credited to the incumbent, with one notable exception: If any candidate chooses to put his or her own cash into a campaign, 100 percent of those funds are matched for the other candidates in the race.

As I see it, this plan will have a chilling effect on fat cats and corporations attempting to influence Congress with cash. It will open elected office to those citizens out there who don't have a few million dollars handy. It's not going to do the oil companies any good to buy a few pet politicians if 85 percent of their dollars are credited to the accounts of their stooge's opponents.

It'll keep high-profile elected officials who don't draw legitimate challengers from amassing huge campaign chests and then spending the money around to curry favor with their colleagues.

Similarly, it will discourage the Michael Huffingtons of this world from spending ridiculous amounts of their own cash to get elected. If rich folks want to use their money to effect change, they can help charities of their choice rather than lining the pockets – and then pulling the strings – of our nation's representatives.

Folks, the only way to clean up our system is to get rid of all the money. Unlike the piecemeal approaches currently offered by Congress, this plan is the only one I've heard that's both constitutional and eliminates all the fund-raising shenanigans infecting our body politic. I'm not naive. I know this will be harder to pass than a golf ball through a garden hose, but if we don't do something bold to restore the ideal of one person, one vote soon, this endless congressional gold digging is going to result in a permanently dysfunctional dime-ocracy.